The Federal High Court sitting in Lagos has declared unlawful the National Assembly’s controversial N110 billion vehicle procurement and support allowance schemes, ruling that the expenditure violated procurement laws, constitutional provisions, and the fiduciary obligations owed by public office holders to Nigerians.
The judgment delivered on Wednesday, May 6, 2026, by Justice Yellim Bogoro in Suit No. FHC/L/CS/1606/2023, represents a significant judicial intervention in the often-contentious debate over the cost of governance and the use of public resources by elected officials.
According to a certified true copy of the judgment sighted at the weekend, the court directed Senate President Godswill Akpabio and Speaker of the House of Representatives Tajudeen Abbas to ensure that future procurement exercises and spending decisions involving public funds by the National Assembly strictly adhere to due process requirements and are guided by transparency, accountability, and value for money principles.
The judgment arose from a legal challenge filed by the Socio-Economic Rights and Accountability Project (SERAP) in August 2023 after reports emerged that lawmakers planned to spend N40 billion on the procurement of 465 vehicles and another N70 billion in support allowances for newly inaugurated members of the National Assembly.
The spending proposal had generated widespread criticism at the time, particularly as it came against the backdrop of worsening economic realities, soaring inflation, mounting poverty figures, and growing public concern over the increasing cost of governance.
Justice Bogoro, in a strongly worded judgment, held that the scale of the expenditure and the circumstances surrounding its approval raised serious questions regarding legality and public interest considerations.
“Looking at the magnitude of the expenditure, coupled with the absence of demonstrable due process, leads me to conclude that the procurement is arbitrary, disproportionate, and inconsistent with statutory procurement standards,” the court held.
The judge further observed that the arrangement created an apparent conflict between public responsibility and private benefit.
“The beneficiaries of the expenditure are the very officials approving it, and the expenditure confers direct pecuniary and material benefits. This to my mind constitutes a case of self-dealing and conflict of interest,” Justice Bogoro ruled.
In rejecting arguments advanced by the National Assembly leadership that the matter fell outside judicial oversight because of legislative independence, the court maintained that constitutional powers exercised by any arm of government remain subject to legality.
“The doctrine of separation of powers does not operate as a shield for illegality,” Justice Bogoro stated.
The court stressed that its intervention was not an attempt to interfere with legislative functions but rather a constitutional obligation to determine whether public expenditure had been carried out within legal boundaries.
In one of the more striking portions of the judgment, the court expressly acknowledged prevailing socioeconomic conditions in the country and questioned the priorities reflected in the expenditure.
“I have taken judicial notice of the economic realities in Nigeria and the widespread financial hardship affecting Nigerian citizens. In this context, the allocation of N110 billion for the benefit of lawmakers demonstrates a failure to prioritize national interest,” the judgment read.
The court further held that public office carries obligations that extend beyond procedural compliance and include broader duties of trust and responsibility to citizens.
“Public office must not be used for personal enrichment. Public officers must act within constitutional boundaries and in good faith,” the judge stated.
SERAP had argued before the court that the proposed expenditure breached Section 57(4) of the Public Procurement Act, 2007, violated provisions of the Code of Conduct for Public Officers, and was inconsistent with constitutional obligations imposed on elected officials.
The advocacy organisation also contended that the procurement exercise lacked transparency and represented an unjustifiable use of public resources.
The defendants, however, denied wrongdoing and maintained that the expenditure was lawful, properly appropriated, and undertaken for official purposes. They further argued that the suit had become academic because the funds had allegedly already been spent and the relevant appropriation period had expired.
However, Justice Bogoro dismissed those objections.
The court held that the matter raised significant constitutional questions and issues of public accountability that remained relevant despite arguments that the expenditure process had already been completed.
On the issue of SERAP’s legal standing, the court observed that legal developments increasingly recognise the importance of public interest litigation.
“NGOs can institute actions to protect public interest,” the court ruled.
Justice Bogoro further noted that SERAP had demonstrated sufficient interest in the matter because of its mandate relating to transparency and accountability.
The court also rejected objections concerning pre-action notice requirements, noting that exceptions exist where urgency and substantial public interest considerations arise.
After reviewing arguments and evidence presented by both parties, the court concluded that the National Assembly leadership failed to provide credible evidence demonstrating compliance with procurement requirements, including competitive bidding procedures and value-for-money assessments.
“The Defendants have failed to provide any credible evidence of compliance with procurement procedure, competitive bidding, and value for money assessment,” the judgment stated.
Consequently, the court granted the declaratory and injunctive reliefs sought by SERAP, declaring that the N40 billion vehicle procurement scheme and the N70 billion support allowance allocation breached statutory and constitutional provisions.
Reacting to the judgment, SERAP Deputy Director Kolawole Oluwadare described the ruling as a significant victory for transparency and responsible public finance management.
“This landmark judgment is a major victory for transparency, accountability, and responsible management of public resources in Nigeria,” he said.
According to him, the ruling reaffirmed the principle that public office remains a trust held on behalf of citizens and that public resources must be deployed strictly in the public interest.
SERAP subsequently urged the National Assembly leadership to immediately comply with the judgment and demonstrate commitment to constitutional governance and the rule of law.
Human rights lawyer, Mr. Femi Falana (SAN), also welcomed the ruling, saying it represented an important judicial response to excessive public spending.
“SERAP deserves commendation for this legal victory. It has been confirmed that the decision of members of the executive and legislature to live in obscene opulence while the people are forced to live in poverty cannot be justified,” Falana said.
He further urged the Revenue Mobilization Allocation and Fiscal Commission to review the judgment and enforce constitutional provisions regulating salaries and allowances for members of the National Assembly.